Today's My Two Cents features News From the Future:
FEBRUARY 23RD, 2050 (CAPITOL CITY, DISTRICT OF SANDERS)
The lone surviving member of the US Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, has died. Sotomayor passed at way at the age of 95 from pancreatic cancer--which the Medicare For All Treatment Rationing Board decided was too expensive to treat. Sotomayor had been the last remaining Justice for four years following the death of Justice Neil Gorsuch back in 2046.
The Supreme Court never regained its nine members after President Donald Trump's four nominees appointed before his impeachment and imprisonment in the late 2010's were denied confirmation by the Senate when all of them were accused by Democrats (the previous name of the Socialist Party) of sexual assault and harassment, with the last infamously disqualified for saying that girls had cooties and giving a classmate a purple nurple in kindergarten.
Following that tumultuous time, the Supreme Court saw its numbers dwindle as the two parties exchanged efforts to destroy all nominees--or never bring them up for a vote. The blockade was nearly broken in 2038, but Senator David Hogg (Socialist, FL) learned just before the confirmation vote that the nominee once owned a gun and may have fired it--a common thing in the country before the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in 2028. Hogg rallied the so-called Millenial Caucus in opposition of the nominee, accusing him of being responsible for school and mall shootings.
Sotomayor had not been asked to rule on a case for nine years, as the Senate had also failed to confirm any Federal or Appeals Court judges since 2018.
El Presidente Alexandra Ocasio Cortez (Socialist, NY) issued a statement (translated from the official national language of Spanish) on Sotomayor's death: "While Justice Sotomayor should be hailed as a pioneer in the Latinx rise to power in this country--and a great help in the establishment of our Socialist State--her death represents the passing of the final vestiges of a racist institution designed strictly to deny advancement of minorities with imperialistic ideals like 'constitutionality', 'individual rights' and 'due process'.
Ocasio Cortez adds that she looks forward to striking Article 3 from the Constitution as "all of my executive orders are inherently fair and require no legal challenge". Any legal disputes will now be handled by the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague, Netherlands.
We reached out to Republicans for comment on Justice Sotomayor's death and El Presidente's response, but they all cited the recent repeal of the First Amendment and new laws establishing criticism of the ruling Socialist Party to be treason as reasons not to speak on the record.
After the break, we'll tell you about hyperinflation that is forcing the Government to raise the minimum wage to $351 an hour. And a Keynsian economist will join us to explain why the Federal deficit reaching a googol dollars is not a reason for concern.
Friday, September 28, 2018
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Let's Get the Innocence Project On This
First a My Two Cents update: Oshkosh School Superintendent Vicki Cartwright says last night's closed session meeting of the School Board was legal as the request for proposals from health insurance vendors contained a provision that allowed the District to negotiate final details with the winning bidder--so those negotiations could be discussed in closed session. All discussion on why the Board chose to reject a bid that would have saved taxpayers $4.3-MILLION was held in open session last night. Now onto today's My Two Cents......
You know who I will be thinking of during today's Brett Kavanaugh vs his accusers Senate hearing? Steven Avery. It's not because Making a Murderer Season 2 is coming out next month. Before he became a cause celebre, Avery was a 22-year old petty criminal in the Manitowoc area. But he became an accused rapist and attempted murderer in the summer of 1985 when a woman was brutally attacked along a Lake Michigan beach.
That woman picked Avery's photo out of a lineup at the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department--and deputies believed that she recognized her attacker. She again picked Avery out as her attacker during an in-person line-up--and detectives believed her. When Avery went on trial, the woman testified that it was Avery that attacked her on the beach that night--and the jury believed her--even though Avery was able to produce a receipt that showed he had made a purchase in Green Bay just minutes after the time of the attack. "A receipt doesn't prove anything!" said the prosecutor "Anyone could have bought something and given Steven Avery that receipt!". Sixteen witnesses that testified that they thought they saw Avery in Green Bay at around that same time were also dismissed--because it was important to believe the victim.
The judge believed the victim too. He sentenced Avery to 32-years in prison. And two appeals courts believed the victim--upholding the convictions and the sentence. A few years later, the Brown County Sheriff's Department let Manitowoc County deputies know that a jail inmate up there was confession to the attack along the beach. But those who accused Avery and helped convict him rejected that tip--famously claiming "We've got the right guy in prison."
It wasn't until the intrepid attorneys with the Wisconsin Innocence Project got involved in the Avery case in the early 2000's that someone finally doubted the victim. After years of legal challenges, they got DNA evidence testing done that proved Avery was not the attacker--and that the wrong man had been accused, tried and convicted. Of course, by that time he had sat in prison for 18-years and there is really no way to provide "restorative justice" to him.
The existential question is "Did Steven Avery's accuser lie about him attacking her?" When you stop to think about it, she truly believed that he is the one that assaulted her on the beach that night. She was just wrong about who it really was. And was Avery and his defenders wrong to deny those claims? As history would eventually prove, they were not. What I find interesting now is that the same celebrities and talking heads that decry Steven Avery's treatment by the justice system are the same ones who immediately called for Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be rejected as a Supreme Court Justice.
Of course, if everyone had continued to believe the beach assault victim, Steven Avery would just now be getting out of prison, Teresa Halbach would probably be a successful wedding photographer in the Green Bay area, and Brendan Dassey would still be playing video games and watching violent porn in his mother's mobile home.
You know who I will be thinking of during today's Brett Kavanaugh vs his accusers Senate hearing? Steven Avery. It's not because Making a Murderer Season 2 is coming out next month. Before he became a cause celebre, Avery was a 22-year old petty criminal in the Manitowoc area. But he became an accused rapist and attempted murderer in the summer of 1985 when a woman was brutally attacked along a Lake Michigan beach.
That woman picked Avery's photo out of a lineup at the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department--and deputies believed that she recognized her attacker. She again picked Avery out as her attacker during an in-person line-up--and detectives believed her. When Avery went on trial, the woman testified that it was Avery that attacked her on the beach that night--and the jury believed her--even though Avery was able to produce a receipt that showed he had made a purchase in Green Bay just minutes after the time of the attack. "A receipt doesn't prove anything!" said the prosecutor "Anyone could have bought something and given Steven Avery that receipt!". Sixteen witnesses that testified that they thought they saw Avery in Green Bay at around that same time were also dismissed--because it was important to believe the victim.
The judge believed the victim too. He sentenced Avery to 32-years in prison. And two appeals courts believed the victim--upholding the convictions and the sentence. A few years later, the Brown County Sheriff's Department let Manitowoc County deputies know that a jail inmate up there was confession to the attack along the beach. But those who accused Avery and helped convict him rejected that tip--famously claiming "We've got the right guy in prison."
It wasn't until the intrepid attorneys with the Wisconsin Innocence Project got involved in the Avery case in the early 2000's that someone finally doubted the victim. After years of legal challenges, they got DNA evidence testing done that proved Avery was not the attacker--and that the wrong man had been accused, tried and convicted. Of course, by that time he had sat in prison for 18-years and there is really no way to provide "restorative justice" to him.
The existential question is "Did Steven Avery's accuser lie about him attacking her?" When you stop to think about it, she truly believed that he is the one that assaulted her on the beach that night. She was just wrong about who it really was. And was Avery and his defenders wrong to deny those claims? As history would eventually prove, they were not. What I find interesting now is that the same celebrities and talking heads that decry Steven Avery's treatment by the justice system are the same ones who immediately called for Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be rejected as a Supreme Court Justice.
Of course, if everyone had continued to believe the beach assault victim, Steven Avery would just now be getting out of prison, Teresa Halbach would probably be a successful wedding photographer in the Green Bay area, and Brendan Dassey would still be playing video games and watching violent porn in his mother's mobile home.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
What Are They Trying To Hide?
For a number of years now, the Oshkosh School Board has been very boring. Former Superintendent Stan Mack ushered in an era of groupthink that urged members not to disagree with each other in public, not to openly question administrators and to always vote in unanimity on agenda items to give the public the perception of a united front supporting everything the district wanted to do. Add to that the election of members all endorsed by the Oshkosh Education Association and that makes for few controversies. The last expression of real emotion at a School Board meeting was several years ago when members got feisty putting together the list of cuts that would be made if the last referendum had failed.
But tonight, there was the possibility of some real fireworks as the Board considers switching health insurance providers. The District had not gone out for bids on insurance in seven years--and likely would not have this year had their current carrier, Health Trust, not dropped a double digit premium increase on them. That exceeded the 8% hike that administrators had already factored into the budget--so the decision was made to see if they could save some money with another carrier.
And it turns out that the District can save a whole lot of money by changing carriers--to the tune of $4.3-MILLION by switching to Network Health Plan. But the various unions employed by the District oppose the change--as Health Trust allowed them to see almost any doctor or specialist they want--while Network Health will limit them to in-system physicians--or charge a hefty fee for out-of-network providers (also known as a health plan that the vast majority of non-public employees have).
And so, it was going to be interesting to see School Board members squirm tonight as they struggle with the decision to either continue to pander to their union base or if they actually give a $4.3-MILLION to the taxpayers they have gone to with and open palm several times in the past ten years asking for more and more money. But then the agenda for tonight's meeting was published and the discussion of the health insurance bids has been moved into closed session.
I called over to Superintendent Vicki Cartwright's office yesterday to question the closed session--as such a step is allowed only if the subject matter concerns competitive issues or bargaining strategies--neither of which exist in this case. The terms of all the bids were laid out in public at the last school board meeting--so no company is being put at a disadvantage by discussing their bids. And under Act 10, health insurance benefits are no longer subject to collective bargaining with the teachers union--so what is the negotiating strategy that needs to be kept out of public view? My years of covering this District lead me to believe that Board members want the cover of closed doors to hold an actual frank discussion about their decision--without having to air their differences in public.
I have received no answer from Superintendent Cartwright's office yesterday--so I will be calling again today. And if I am still not provided with answers to justify the closed session, I will be contacting the attorneys that work with the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association for legal guidance. Who knows, you may even see me appear before the School Board itself tonight challenging the attempt to go into closed session without proper justification for shutting out the public from what will go into making this decision. There are only $4.3-MILLION reasons why we should know why each Oshkosh School Board member votes they way they do tonight.
But tonight, there was the possibility of some real fireworks as the Board considers switching health insurance providers. The District had not gone out for bids on insurance in seven years--and likely would not have this year had their current carrier, Health Trust, not dropped a double digit premium increase on them. That exceeded the 8% hike that administrators had already factored into the budget--so the decision was made to see if they could save some money with another carrier.
And it turns out that the District can save a whole lot of money by changing carriers--to the tune of $4.3-MILLION by switching to Network Health Plan. But the various unions employed by the District oppose the change--as Health Trust allowed them to see almost any doctor or specialist they want--while Network Health will limit them to in-system physicians--or charge a hefty fee for out-of-network providers (also known as a health plan that the vast majority of non-public employees have).
And so, it was going to be interesting to see School Board members squirm tonight as they struggle with the decision to either continue to pander to their union base or if they actually give a $4.3-MILLION to the taxpayers they have gone to with and open palm several times in the past ten years asking for more and more money. But then the agenda for tonight's meeting was published and the discussion of the health insurance bids has been moved into closed session.
I called over to Superintendent Vicki Cartwright's office yesterday to question the closed session--as such a step is allowed only if the subject matter concerns competitive issues or bargaining strategies--neither of which exist in this case. The terms of all the bids were laid out in public at the last school board meeting--so no company is being put at a disadvantage by discussing their bids. And under Act 10, health insurance benefits are no longer subject to collective bargaining with the teachers union--so what is the negotiating strategy that needs to be kept out of public view? My years of covering this District lead me to believe that Board members want the cover of closed doors to hold an actual frank discussion about their decision--without having to air their differences in public.
I have received no answer from Superintendent Cartwright's office yesterday--so I will be calling again today. And if I am still not provided with answers to justify the closed session, I will be contacting the attorneys that work with the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association for legal guidance. Who knows, you may even see me appear before the School Board itself tonight challenging the attempt to go into closed session without proper justification for shutting out the public from what will go into making this decision. There are only $4.3-MILLION reasons why we should know why each Oshkosh School Board member votes they way they do tonight.
Monday, September 24, 2018
The Coverup Within the Coverup
One aspect of the Catholic Priest Abuse Scandal that often gets glossed over is the active role church members themselves took in perpetuating the cover up. Another example of that was provided by Green Bay Bishop David Ricken during a press conference last week addressing Auxiliary Bishop Robert Morneau's resignation from active ministry.
Ricken explained that Morneau chose not to report allegations of molestation against former priest David Boyea to police back in 1979 and instead--and this sounds laughable today--arranged a meeting between the priest, his accuser and the accuser's mother, where Boyea apologized for molesting the boy and the boy's mother accepted that as a suitable settlement of the matter. Imagine what it must have been like for that child to be the victim of a crime--to have your mother accept an apology from the offender as suitable punishment for him--and then to likely be told to never mention what had happened again to anyone. Meanwhile, Boyea was able to continue his abuse of children--not being charged or convicted for another six years.
It reminded me of the two brothers that accused former priest John Patrick Feeney of molesting them at an Outagamie County church back in the 1970's. They testified that their own mother accused them of lying about the abuse and refused to take their allegations to either police or church officials. Finally, enough families did come forward that Feeney was not reported to police--but rather sent to another state to become another diocese's problem.
In prepping for this My Two Cents, I reviewed the case from the church that I attended as a child--Saint Mary's in Clarks Mills--where Father John Conrad resigned suddenly in 2002 after admitting he had a sexual relationship with an underage student at Manitowoc Roncalli High School in the 1970's. The account from the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter notes that parishoners gave Conrad a standing ovation after his announcement as to why he was leaving the ministry effective immediately--and that members hugged Conrad and cried after the service. "We love you, Father John" was the sign posted outside of the church the following day. A couple of parishoners are quoted as saying Conrad should have been forgiven and allowed to continue as a priest.
This is why the Catholic Church became a haven for pedophiles. Can you name another profession where an adult man would be given unfettered access to children, never be questioned for showing no sexual interest in adults, command immediate respect from others, be held above reproach, have accusers doubted by their own parents, have an employer that would take any and all steps to not have the police involved--even if a preponderance of evidence showed that a crime had been committed and have the victims believe that simple penance is a suitable punishment rather than incarceration?
Ultimately, it was the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that allowed the priest abuse scandal to fester and grow into a systemic cancer. But it was the cover up inside the cover up perpetrated by the very members of the church that resulted in just as many predators to go unpunished for so long.
Ricken explained that Morneau chose not to report allegations of molestation against former priest David Boyea to police back in 1979 and instead--and this sounds laughable today--arranged a meeting between the priest, his accuser and the accuser's mother, where Boyea apologized for molesting the boy and the boy's mother accepted that as a suitable settlement of the matter. Imagine what it must have been like for that child to be the victim of a crime--to have your mother accept an apology from the offender as suitable punishment for him--and then to likely be told to never mention what had happened again to anyone. Meanwhile, Boyea was able to continue his abuse of children--not being charged or convicted for another six years.
It reminded me of the two brothers that accused former priest John Patrick Feeney of molesting them at an Outagamie County church back in the 1970's. They testified that their own mother accused them of lying about the abuse and refused to take their allegations to either police or church officials. Finally, enough families did come forward that Feeney was not reported to police--but rather sent to another state to become another diocese's problem.
In prepping for this My Two Cents, I reviewed the case from the church that I attended as a child--Saint Mary's in Clarks Mills--where Father John Conrad resigned suddenly in 2002 after admitting he had a sexual relationship with an underage student at Manitowoc Roncalli High School in the 1970's. The account from the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter notes that parishoners gave Conrad a standing ovation after his announcement as to why he was leaving the ministry effective immediately--and that members hugged Conrad and cried after the service. "We love you, Father John" was the sign posted outside of the church the following day. A couple of parishoners are quoted as saying Conrad should have been forgiven and allowed to continue as a priest.
This is why the Catholic Church became a haven for pedophiles. Can you name another profession where an adult man would be given unfettered access to children, never be questioned for showing no sexual interest in adults, command immediate respect from others, be held above reproach, have accusers doubted by their own parents, have an employer that would take any and all steps to not have the police involved--even if a preponderance of evidence showed that a crime had been committed and have the victims believe that simple penance is a suitable punishment rather than incarceration?
Ultimately, it was the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that allowed the priest abuse scandal to fester and grow into a systemic cancer. But it was the cover up inside the cover up perpetrated by the very members of the church that resulted in just as many predators to go unpunished for so long.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Give the Kids a Chance
It's Friday, and that means another night of high school football. Our Saturday morning sports updates are increasingly filled with outrageous blowout scores--as a growing number of schools see a migration of good athletes away from the sport--leaving those left behind to get pounded on a weekly basis. Last week's spreads in the Fox Valley included losses by 42, 51 and 70-points--not to mention several involving the magic 35-point deficit that triggers a running clock under WIAA rules. A quick check shows many of those teams on the not-so-funny end of those "laughers" are yet to win a game this year.
By it's very nature, football is the one sport where the team with less talent, strength and speed has little chance to hang with a better opponent. You can't stall and hold the ball in the middle of the field like in basketball. One good player can't shut down the other team like a baseball pitcher. And there is no hot goalie to stop every scoring attempt like in hockey or soccer. You gotta have 22-guys that can play, or you are going to get hammered.
But might I suggest to the coaches of these struggling programs that they try something that might actually make you a bit more competitive? Try something radically different. And by radically different, I don't mean blitz more on first down or add the jet sweep to your offensive package. I'm talking about switching to the Single Wing Offense.
If one of those coaches were here in the studio right now you would probably see them rolling their eyes at that suggestion. The Single Wing is seen as "archaic"--it was invented by Pop Warner--and no self-respecting "offensive genius" would think about running it today. But consider it was designed for use by teams that are smaller and slower than their opponents. Misdirection and trap blocking limit the need for huge offensive linemen or backs with 4.3 speed. And the general reliance on running means the clock keeps ticking--shortening the amount of time the other team can have the ball to score.
The biggest advantage to running the Single Wing is that it's almost impossible to prepare for. Opposing scout teams can pick up the Spread/Read Option fairly quickly today because everyone runs the Spread/Read Option. But who has a Single Wing playbook? And how many centers are trained in directional snapping to one of the two backs in the backfield? And how many of those backs are used to throwing passes on the rollout? How many quarterbacks line up behind the tackle and throw blocks or take inside reverse tosses? Running the Single Wing may not score you many wins, but it should keep the other team on their heels for at least a half while your run every possible option at them in the playbook.
And if these coaches are concerned about their reputations, then try the slightly more modern offenses like the Wing T or the Wishbone--which also rely on quick timing option plays that can confuse better defenses and give you a chance to hang onto the ball longer than a 3-and-out throwing three incompletions out of the Spread.
We consider "great coaches" today to be guys that dream up elaborate offensive schemes that chuck the ball all over the place and put up big numbers. I'd rather have a coach that realizes the limitations of his team and finds the system that gives them the best chance to succeed every week. Or least not lose by 70.
By it's very nature, football is the one sport where the team with less talent, strength and speed has little chance to hang with a better opponent. You can't stall and hold the ball in the middle of the field like in basketball. One good player can't shut down the other team like a baseball pitcher. And there is no hot goalie to stop every scoring attempt like in hockey or soccer. You gotta have 22-guys that can play, or you are going to get hammered.
But might I suggest to the coaches of these struggling programs that they try something that might actually make you a bit more competitive? Try something radically different. And by radically different, I don't mean blitz more on first down or add the jet sweep to your offensive package. I'm talking about switching to the Single Wing Offense.
If one of those coaches were here in the studio right now you would probably see them rolling their eyes at that suggestion. The Single Wing is seen as "archaic"--it was invented by Pop Warner--and no self-respecting "offensive genius" would think about running it today. But consider it was designed for use by teams that are smaller and slower than their opponents. Misdirection and trap blocking limit the need for huge offensive linemen or backs with 4.3 speed. And the general reliance on running means the clock keeps ticking--shortening the amount of time the other team can have the ball to score.
The biggest advantage to running the Single Wing is that it's almost impossible to prepare for. Opposing scout teams can pick up the Spread/Read Option fairly quickly today because everyone runs the Spread/Read Option. But who has a Single Wing playbook? And how many centers are trained in directional snapping to one of the two backs in the backfield? And how many of those backs are used to throwing passes on the rollout? How many quarterbacks line up behind the tackle and throw blocks or take inside reverse tosses? Running the Single Wing may not score you many wins, but it should keep the other team on their heels for at least a half while your run every possible option at them in the playbook.
And if these coaches are concerned about their reputations, then try the slightly more modern offenses like the Wing T or the Wishbone--which also rely on quick timing option plays that can confuse better defenses and give you a chance to hang onto the ball longer than a 3-and-out throwing three incompletions out of the Spread.
We consider "great coaches" today to be guys that dream up elaborate offensive schemes that chuck the ball all over the place and put up big numbers. I'd rather have a coach that realizes the limitations of his team and finds the system that gives them the best chance to succeed every week. Or least not lose by 70.
Thursday, September 20, 2018
This is Not How Any of This Works
As a fiscal conservative--and someone who believes in fiscal responsibility--I would normally applaud efforts by any elected official to demand an accounting for how taxpayer dollars are spent. I've seen way too many budget workshops, public hearings and final votes that saw nobody question four percent increases in spending in one department's budget and two percent in another and a three-percent tax increase. But there is a fine line between proper oversight and governance and what is going on with the Omro School Board.
No doubt you heard the story that WOSH broke this week that board member Joanie Beem was hit with a restraining order by the district for her behavior toward employees and fellow board members. The harassment alleged in the petition for the order cites Beem's more than five years worth of demands from district employees for a penny-by-penny accounting of all expenditures. This started before Beem was elected to the School Board and only escalated once she got on the Board. In one case, the police had to be called in to get her to leave.
Beem's demand for a line by line accounting of spending creates lengthy School Board meetings--and most of her questions are not even answered--as the rest of the board has no interest in explanations of payroll deduction payments or purchases of janitorial supplies and does not require administrators to answer her queries. At their last meeting, the Board brought in a representative from the Wisconsin Association of School Boards to basically lecture Beem on proper governance. A few days after that, she was hit with the restraining order.
Here's the bottom line, if Beem and the groups supporting her in Omro believe that the District is engaged in misappropriation of funds--or malfeasance--then they need to make those accusations public and take them to the proper authorities. It is not the role of an elected official with no such training to act as a forensic accountant hoping to find the "smoking gun" in the hundreds of checks and credit card charges accrued by the District every month.
If this is nothing more than "I'm not happy with the way the District is spending it's money", then Beem's backers need to get more people who think their way on the Board and create the budget themselves. That is what democracy looks like--not harassing and threatening people trying to do their jobs.
No doubt you heard the story that WOSH broke this week that board member Joanie Beem was hit with a restraining order by the district for her behavior toward employees and fellow board members. The harassment alleged in the petition for the order cites Beem's more than five years worth of demands from district employees for a penny-by-penny accounting of all expenditures. This started before Beem was elected to the School Board and only escalated once she got on the Board. In one case, the police had to be called in to get her to leave.
Beem's demand for a line by line accounting of spending creates lengthy School Board meetings--and most of her questions are not even answered--as the rest of the board has no interest in explanations of payroll deduction payments or purchases of janitorial supplies and does not require administrators to answer her queries. At their last meeting, the Board brought in a representative from the Wisconsin Association of School Boards to basically lecture Beem on proper governance. A few days after that, she was hit with the restraining order.
Here's the bottom line, if Beem and the groups supporting her in Omro believe that the District is engaged in misappropriation of funds--or malfeasance--then they need to make those accusations public and take them to the proper authorities. It is not the role of an elected official with no such training to act as a forensic accountant hoping to find the "smoking gun" in the hundreds of checks and credit card charges accrued by the District every month.
If this is nothing more than "I'm not happy with the way the District is spending it's money", then Beem's backers need to get more people who think their way on the Board and create the budget themselves. That is what democracy looks like--not harassing and threatening people trying to do their jobs.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Not That There's Anything Wrong With That
We have a new controversy separating the country. No, it's not repressed memory accusations against a Supreme Court nominee or what show should have won an Emmy for best comedy. The nation is now engrossed in an argument over whether Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie are gay.
The firestorm was lit by former Sesame Street writer Marc Saltzman who told a gay-readership magazine that the two Muppets were in a same-sex relationship--based on his own relationship with his long-time partner. Saltzman was immediately hailed as a "hero" for placing gay characters in a show targeted at children ages 2 to 5.
The flames of controversy were later fanned when famed puppeteer Frank Oz--who created Bert with Jim Henson's Ernie--took to Twitter to unequivocally deny that the characters were gay. Oz didn't say that the two Muppets were straight either. But for the next several hours he was forced to try and defend his statement from hundreds of attacks calling him a "bigot" and a "hater" for not assigning sexuality to pieces of cloth.
Things were so out of hand yesterday that the Sesame Workshop--the current holders of the rights to the show's characters and production--had to issue a statement on Twitter that Bert and Ernie are not gay, but rather teach that you can be friends with or love anyone. That too was followed by scathing attacks demanding that gay puppets be introduced to the show in the name of "inclusion and fairness".
Of course, the real question here is not if two puppets that are portrayed as living together are homosexuals. The real question is why a show geared toward pre-schoolers has to include any content about sexuality at all? Here is what Bert and Ernie are designed to teach kids: that sharing is important, that you can be friends with someone who is completely different than you, that you should learn to forgive those that may upset you, and that living with a clean freak is a nightmare.
Show me one episode of Sesame Street where any of the Muppets told kids that being gay is bad--and that you should only be straight. Actually, show me any Sesame Street episode where any type of sexual relationship is ever discussed. Yes, the human actors on the show talk about being married and they have brought their own babies on the show--but the actual mechanics of how that baby got made were never discussed.
So please, stop the calls for gay pre-school children's television characters. Hold off on the "I'm Bert, He's Ernie" gay pride t-shirts. And let's stop turning every aspect of life into an opportunity to play identity politics.
The firestorm was lit by former Sesame Street writer Marc Saltzman who told a gay-readership magazine that the two Muppets were in a same-sex relationship--based on his own relationship with his long-time partner. Saltzman was immediately hailed as a "hero" for placing gay characters in a show targeted at children ages 2 to 5.
The flames of controversy were later fanned when famed puppeteer Frank Oz--who created Bert with Jim Henson's Ernie--took to Twitter to unequivocally deny that the characters were gay. Oz didn't say that the two Muppets were straight either. But for the next several hours he was forced to try and defend his statement from hundreds of attacks calling him a "bigot" and a "hater" for not assigning sexuality to pieces of cloth.
Things were so out of hand yesterday that the Sesame Workshop--the current holders of the rights to the show's characters and production--had to issue a statement on Twitter that Bert and Ernie are not gay, but rather teach that you can be friends with or love anyone. That too was followed by scathing attacks demanding that gay puppets be introduced to the show in the name of "inclusion and fairness".
Of course, the real question here is not if two puppets that are portrayed as living together are homosexuals. The real question is why a show geared toward pre-schoolers has to include any content about sexuality at all? Here is what Bert and Ernie are designed to teach kids: that sharing is important, that you can be friends with someone who is completely different than you, that you should learn to forgive those that may upset you, and that living with a clean freak is a nightmare.
Show me one episode of Sesame Street where any of the Muppets told kids that being gay is bad--and that you should only be straight. Actually, show me any Sesame Street episode where any type of sexual relationship is ever discussed. Yes, the human actors on the show talk about being married and they have brought their own babies on the show--but the actual mechanics of how that baby got made were never discussed.
So please, stop the calls for gay pre-school children's television characters. Hold off on the "I'm Bert, He's Ernie" gay pride t-shirts. And let's stop turning every aspect of life into an opportunity to play identity politics.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
The Show Trial of the Century
A couple of weeks ago, I played for you the opening statement of Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse during the Brett Kavanaugh nomination hearings where he lamented the Legislative Branch's abdication of its powers prescribed in the Constitution. It was Sasse's point that such Supreme Court nominations have taken on a life or death hysteria because lawmaking is no longer done in Congress--but rather in the White House and in the Supreme Court chambers. But now, the Legislative Branch is about to take on the role of the Judiciary by holding hearings on the accusations of attempted sexual assault against Kavanaugh made by a teenage acquaintance. And the announcement was made on the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution.
Do not compare the accusations made by Anita Hill against Justice Clarence Thomas--which were vetted during Senate committee testimony in 1991--with the accusations made against Kavanaugh today. We are not talking about dirty jokes in the office and creepy offers to buy drinks. We are talking about the attempted commission of a crime here. But rather than conducting a trial in a court of law where rules govern the process--and provide protections for both the accuser and the accused--this will be a show trial conducted by a non-judicial body and without a jury of the accused's peers.
Consider that hearsay statements will be allowed. There will be no physical evidence entered into the record. Discovery will not be provided to the two parties involved. Probative questions not related to the actual incident will be permitted. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will serve as the "prosecutors"--asking the accuser leading questions and attempting to poke holes in Kavanaugh's defense. Republicans will be the "defense attorneys", exploiting inconsistencies in the accuser's stories, calling up incidents to impugn her integrity and honesty and leading Kavanaugh himself to the answers that they want to hear.
And when all of the testimony wraps up (you can't really use the term "evidence" here) those that just served as the prosecution, the defense and the judge--will decide the guilt or innocence of Kavanaugh. Except that every single one of them will come to the proceedings with their minds already made up about his guilt or innocence. Not exactly how justice is supposed to be doled out in this country. Although, an actual legal proceeding to determine the veracity of the accusations against Kavanaugh wouldn't change anything either--since the Court of Public Opinion has already weighed in--without any testimony necessary.
Do not compare the accusations made by Anita Hill against Justice Clarence Thomas--which were vetted during Senate committee testimony in 1991--with the accusations made against Kavanaugh today. We are not talking about dirty jokes in the office and creepy offers to buy drinks. We are talking about the attempted commission of a crime here. But rather than conducting a trial in a court of law where rules govern the process--and provide protections for both the accuser and the accused--this will be a show trial conducted by a non-judicial body and without a jury of the accused's peers.
Consider that hearsay statements will be allowed. There will be no physical evidence entered into the record. Discovery will not be provided to the two parties involved. Probative questions not related to the actual incident will be permitted. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will serve as the "prosecutors"--asking the accuser leading questions and attempting to poke holes in Kavanaugh's defense. Republicans will be the "defense attorneys", exploiting inconsistencies in the accuser's stories, calling up incidents to impugn her integrity and honesty and leading Kavanaugh himself to the answers that they want to hear.
And when all of the testimony wraps up (you can't really use the term "evidence" here) those that just served as the prosecution, the defense and the judge--will decide the guilt or innocence of Kavanaugh. Except that every single one of them will come to the proceedings with their minds already made up about his guilt or innocence. Not exactly how justice is supposed to be doled out in this country. Although, an actual legal proceeding to determine the veracity of the accusations against Kavanaugh wouldn't change anything either--since the Court of Public Opinion has already weighed in--without any testimony necessary.
Monday, September 17, 2018
It's Only Going to Get Worse
If it's any consolation to Packers' fans, eventually every fan base in the NFL will be as angry with the league as you are this morning. As long as the rules of the league continue to be reactionary, capricious and arbitrary, every team will eventually lose a game because an official tried to enforce a rule that is almost impossible to comply with by a player at full speed--and cannot be discerned by an official at game speed. Packers' fans should consider themselves lucky the Vikings don't have an NFL-quality kicker or they would have taken an "L" instead of an ugly tie.
Of course, there is a delicious irony in that the Packers got burned by a decision involving the "Aaron Rodgers Rule"--in a game against the team that committed the original "infraction" that led to the institution of the rule. But that is the nature of instituting rules on a reactionary basis. If Aaron Rodgers gets up from last year's hit by Vikings linebacker Anthony Barr without a broken collarbone, the NFL never considers making "landing with the full force of a defensive player's weight on a 'defenseless' quarterback" a penalty--and yesterday's interception by Jaire Alexander would stand, the Packers would be 2-0 and hold an early tie-breaker over the team that was expected to win the division (if they had a kicker that could make a field goal and a quarterback that didn't have a history of coming up small in the clutch--but those are matters for another day.)
The Packers likely also would have won yesterday if Anthony Barr had knocked Jaimes Winston to the ground last year, or Nate Peterman or Ryan Fitzpatrick. Any of those guys getting hurt would not have generated the concern at NFL Headquarters that losing one of the "faces of the league"--Aaron Rodgers--did. Consider that it is also illegal to hit a quarterback at the knees--the so-called "Tom Brady Rule"--instituted in the off-season after that "face of the league" was lost for the season due to a knee injury on a low hit. Mike Daniels could have been flagged for that on the same drive as he hit Kirk Cousins at the knees on the touchdown pass to Adam Thielen. Just think if one of the two Packers DB's that ran into each other instead of making a play on the ball had picked that one off and Daniels had been flagged for another roughing the passer penalty. They would have needed to call in those Navy helicopters that buzzed the stadium in the pre-season to airlift the officials to safety after the game.
So stew in your frustration today, Packers' fans, and decide if you really want to continue to put up with a sport that continues to chip away at what made it a great game for decades--but now has completely sold out to fantasy league play and professional gambling with rules that continually punish what had been great defensive play for 98-years.
Of course, there is a delicious irony in that the Packers got burned by a decision involving the "Aaron Rodgers Rule"--in a game against the team that committed the original "infraction" that led to the institution of the rule. But that is the nature of instituting rules on a reactionary basis. If Aaron Rodgers gets up from last year's hit by Vikings linebacker Anthony Barr without a broken collarbone, the NFL never considers making "landing with the full force of a defensive player's weight on a 'defenseless' quarterback" a penalty--and yesterday's interception by Jaire Alexander would stand, the Packers would be 2-0 and hold an early tie-breaker over the team that was expected to win the division (if they had a kicker that could make a field goal and a quarterback that didn't have a history of coming up small in the clutch--but those are matters for another day.)
The Packers likely also would have won yesterday if Anthony Barr had knocked Jaimes Winston to the ground last year, or Nate Peterman or Ryan Fitzpatrick. Any of those guys getting hurt would not have generated the concern at NFL Headquarters that losing one of the "faces of the league"--Aaron Rodgers--did. Consider that it is also illegal to hit a quarterback at the knees--the so-called "Tom Brady Rule"--instituted in the off-season after that "face of the league" was lost for the season due to a knee injury on a low hit. Mike Daniels could have been flagged for that on the same drive as he hit Kirk Cousins at the knees on the touchdown pass to Adam Thielen. Just think if one of the two Packers DB's that ran into each other instead of making a play on the ball had picked that one off and Daniels had been flagged for another roughing the passer penalty. They would have needed to call in those Navy helicopters that buzzed the stadium in the pre-season to airlift the officials to safety after the game.
So stew in your frustration today, Packers' fans, and decide if you really want to continue to put up with a sport that continues to chip away at what made it a great game for decades--but now has completely sold out to fantasy league play and professional gambling with rules that continually punish what had been great defensive play for 98-years.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Left Standing To Rot
Urban decay is often blamed on social causes. Working class whites fleeing the inner city for the suburbs. Manufacturers closing down large production facilities that were the lifeblood of cities. Increasing poverty and failing schools are usually cited as well. I prefer to go political, blaming the election of Democrats to run cities for decades and in some cases centuries. But the biggest reason cities rot from the inside out is because we no longer see the greatest force in economic redevelopment in history anymore: Fire.
No factor has been greater in allowing cities to rebuild rundown sections of themselves than fires sweeping through entire neighborhoods. New York, Chicago and San Francisco were set upon the path toward becoming major metropolises by huge fires that cleared decaying areas of the cities and allowed for construction of more modern facilities. You can see that even here in Oshkosh. The beautiful cream city brick and masonry buildings along North Main Street and the surrounding blocks were not built because developers got tax incremental financing or community development block grants. They were built because the structures that stood there before burned to the ground.
But advances in fire fighting equipment, fire suppression techniques, the increased use of non-flammable construction materials and building code improvements have meant fewer big fires that wipe out old, delapidated buildings--preventing new construction in its place. I was thinking about that this week as the Oshkosh Common Council discussed ways to spur increased new home construction within the city. The housing stock on the east side is old--and is filled with a large percentage of renters--who fill up decaying buildings that have really outlived their expected use.
It doesn't help when efforts to demolish or gut those homes are derailed by historical societies and preservation commissions that demand it be kept in its original condition because it was "the first Oshkosh home built in such and such style", or it is the "last Oshkosh home built in such and such style". And Development Director Allen Davis even admitted that the City doesn't have the money to condemn and demolish that many blighted properties--or provide incentives to people to remodel those old structures into modern homes in which people would actually want to live.
So a large percentage of Oshkosh homes will continue to grow older and less-desirable--and efforts to revitalize those areas will become more expensive. At least we'll have a bunch of senior living units to look at along the Fox River--instead of big, beautiful homes.
No factor has been greater in allowing cities to rebuild rundown sections of themselves than fires sweeping through entire neighborhoods. New York, Chicago and San Francisco were set upon the path toward becoming major metropolises by huge fires that cleared decaying areas of the cities and allowed for construction of more modern facilities. You can see that even here in Oshkosh. The beautiful cream city brick and masonry buildings along North Main Street and the surrounding blocks were not built because developers got tax incremental financing or community development block grants. They were built because the structures that stood there before burned to the ground.
But advances in fire fighting equipment, fire suppression techniques, the increased use of non-flammable construction materials and building code improvements have meant fewer big fires that wipe out old, delapidated buildings--preventing new construction in its place. I was thinking about that this week as the Oshkosh Common Council discussed ways to spur increased new home construction within the city. The housing stock on the east side is old--and is filled with a large percentage of renters--who fill up decaying buildings that have really outlived their expected use.
It doesn't help when efforts to demolish or gut those homes are derailed by historical societies and preservation commissions that demand it be kept in its original condition because it was "the first Oshkosh home built in such and such style", or it is the "last Oshkosh home built in such and such style". And Development Director Allen Davis even admitted that the City doesn't have the money to condemn and demolish that many blighted properties--or provide incentives to people to remodel those old structures into modern homes in which people would actually want to live.
So a large percentage of Oshkosh homes will continue to grow older and less-desirable--and efforts to revitalize those areas will become more expensive. At least we'll have a bunch of senior living units to look at along the Fox River--instead of big, beautiful homes.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
It's Not the Booze's Fault
Court hearings are often among the most-emotional events that I cover. The loss of life due to a criminal act often generates anger, passion and grief that gets brought up again and again with each hearing. The ante is increased now that the State requires victims, survivors and family members to get their say in the courtroom.
That emotion can spill over to the judges themselves. Many a judge has handed down "angry sentences" to defendants that have show no effort to live within the law or who show no remorse for their actions. But Brown County Judge William Atkinson let his emotions go too far in a sentencing hearing yesterday for a drunk driver that killed a mother and a daughter. Atkinson actually broke down into tears while sentencing David Meyer to ten years in prison and ten years on extended supervision. Atkinson talked about what it would be like to lose his own wife and daughter and then made a comment about how he would "never give a dollar to the alcohol industry".
I take great exception to Judge Atkinson's assertion that Miller-Coors or Jack Daniels distillery are somehow to blame for Meyer's actions. Dozens of people attended the same golf outing as Meyer and they didn't get hammered and drive and kill two people. They enjoyed a legal product responsibly. Just like millions of other Americans did on that same day. David Meyer decided to drink to excess, David Meyer choose to drive when he had to know that he was well beyond the legal limit, and David Meyer is the one that struck those two women walking along the side of the road. David Meyer alone is responsible for their deaths.
It would be interesting to sit in Judge Atkinson's courtroom for a few days to see if he blames gun manufacturers for shootings and armed robberies, cutlery makers for stabbings, automobile manufacturers for reckless driving deaths, and pharmaceutical companies for painkiller overdoses. If the Judge is being consistent about not spending money on things he believes are responsible" for killings, he would never go hunting, he would be cutting his steak with a spoon, he would be walking everywhere and he would be facing a very painful recovery from a serious injury or surgery.
If Judge Atkinson wants to be a teetotaler and miss out on enjoying delicious melted beverages and distilled spirits in moderation--that is his prerogative. But don't give those who make the free will choice to abuse such products and kill or injure others something besides themselves to blame.
That emotion can spill over to the judges themselves. Many a judge has handed down "angry sentences" to defendants that have show no effort to live within the law or who show no remorse for their actions. But Brown County Judge William Atkinson let his emotions go too far in a sentencing hearing yesterday for a drunk driver that killed a mother and a daughter. Atkinson actually broke down into tears while sentencing David Meyer to ten years in prison and ten years on extended supervision. Atkinson talked about what it would be like to lose his own wife and daughter and then made a comment about how he would "never give a dollar to the alcohol industry".
I take great exception to Judge Atkinson's assertion that Miller-Coors or Jack Daniels distillery are somehow to blame for Meyer's actions. Dozens of people attended the same golf outing as Meyer and they didn't get hammered and drive and kill two people. They enjoyed a legal product responsibly. Just like millions of other Americans did on that same day. David Meyer decided to drink to excess, David Meyer choose to drive when he had to know that he was well beyond the legal limit, and David Meyer is the one that struck those two women walking along the side of the road. David Meyer alone is responsible for their deaths.
It would be interesting to sit in Judge Atkinson's courtroom for a few days to see if he blames gun manufacturers for shootings and armed robberies, cutlery makers for stabbings, automobile manufacturers for reckless driving deaths, and pharmaceutical companies for painkiller overdoses. If the Judge is being consistent about not spending money on things he believes are responsible" for killings, he would never go hunting, he would be cutting his steak with a spoon, he would be walking everywhere and he would be facing a very painful recovery from a serious injury or surgery.
If Judge Atkinson wants to be a teetotaler and miss out on enjoying delicious melted beverages and distilled spirits in moderation--that is his prerogative. But don't give those who make the free will choice to abuse such products and kill or injure others something besides themselves to blame.
Monday, September 10, 2018
The Thin Line
I've gotta say that I am not surprised in the least by the revelations contained in Bob Woodward's new book about the inner workings of the Trump White House called Fear. A celebrity that gained his greatest fame by mocking other celebrities, that built his business on intimidation of contractors and local government officials, and that wants only "yes men" and sycophants around him is running an executive branch bordering on total chaos. I would have been shocked if things had turned out any other way. Trump likely thought he was being elected King--with absolute power to do whatever he wants--not President, who must work with two other branches of government.
Nor am I surprised by the contents of the anonymous op-ed piece in the New York Times last week. Members of the administrations thinking about country first--and not pleasing their boss and his mercurial whims--are the only thing keeping the chaos behind the scenes from spreading to the rest of the country and the world. Consider that if those department secretaries or administration staff weren't in place. We would have left South Korea unprotected from its nuclear-armed communist neighbor. We would have walked away from existing trade deals with no other terms in place. We would be in a full-fledged ground war in Syria. And we would likely be on our fourth Attorney General, third Defense Secretary and 10th White House Chief of Staff.
But what happens when those who are taking the steps to keep order in this country either tire of their constant efforts to avoid total disaster--or get ratted out for taking the brave step to let everyone know what is going on behind closed doors at the White House and they are either fired, or their resignations are demanded by their hot-head boss? What happens when those with sinister intentions or interest only in political advancement take over those positions--and they make no efforts to put country first?
The final two years of the Trump Administration could be even more stormy than the first two. A loss of Republican control in Congress will assure that nothing that President Trump wants to do will get done. There may be impeachment hearings, more in-depth investigations into Russian ties and serious questions asked about financial issues and Trump-related businesses. All of which will drive the Commander in Chief closer to the edge--and more willing to take risks--either in acts of vengeance or attempts to look like a more-powerful man.
So what do we do when those who know the right thing to do, who want to do the right thing and have the courage to do the right thing--despite the wishes of their irrational boss--are no longer there? It is a thin line between maintaining some order behind the scenes in the White House--and total chaos spilling out into the rest of the world. Will those protecting us hang in there for two more years--or will our worst fears be realized?
Nor am I surprised by the contents of the anonymous op-ed piece in the New York Times last week. Members of the administrations thinking about country first--and not pleasing their boss and his mercurial whims--are the only thing keeping the chaos behind the scenes from spreading to the rest of the country and the world. Consider that if those department secretaries or administration staff weren't in place. We would have left South Korea unprotected from its nuclear-armed communist neighbor. We would have walked away from existing trade deals with no other terms in place. We would be in a full-fledged ground war in Syria. And we would likely be on our fourth Attorney General, third Defense Secretary and 10th White House Chief of Staff.
But what happens when those who are taking the steps to keep order in this country either tire of their constant efforts to avoid total disaster--or get ratted out for taking the brave step to let everyone know what is going on behind closed doors at the White House and they are either fired, or their resignations are demanded by their hot-head boss? What happens when those with sinister intentions or interest only in political advancement take over those positions--and they make no efforts to put country first?
The final two years of the Trump Administration could be even more stormy than the first two. A loss of Republican control in Congress will assure that nothing that President Trump wants to do will get done. There may be impeachment hearings, more in-depth investigations into Russian ties and serious questions asked about financial issues and Trump-related businesses. All of which will drive the Commander in Chief closer to the edge--and more willing to take risks--either in acts of vengeance or attempts to look like a more-powerful man.
So what do we do when those who know the right thing to do, who want to do the right thing and have the courage to do the right thing--despite the wishes of their irrational boss--are no longer there? It is a thin line between maintaining some order behind the scenes in the White House--and total chaos spilling out into the rest of the world. Will those protecting us hang in there for two more years--or will our worst fears be realized?
Friday, September 7, 2018
The Cannonization of Ruth Bader Ginsberg
With apologies to the egos of the Kardashians, there is no woman hotter in America right now than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. There is not one but two movies coming out about her life--one a documentary by CNN that premiers on Sunday night--and another starring Felicity Jones being made in Hollywood. There are novelty T-shirts bearing Bader Ginsberg image and often sassy titles like "Queen Bitch". She has been given a gangster rap-type nickname "The Notorious RBG". She is portrayed on a regular basis on Saturday Night Live (always as a butt-kicking, spunky, "Golden Girls-type character) and there is even a Ruth Bader Ginsberg action figure.
Bader Ginsberg has been on the Supreme Court for 25-years now--so her sudden popularity may seem a bit strange. Actually, the pop culture popularity of any Supreme Court justice should be baffling--but there is a reason for it at this time. Given that she is 85-years old, Bader Ginsberg is seen as the "next" Supreme Court Justice to leave the High Court--either through retirement (which she would never do with a Republican President in office) or through death. And as the staunchest of liberals on the Court, the Left cannot bear the thought of her being replaced by someone that would be appointed by Donald Trump or any other Republican that might win in 2020.
So a concerted effort is underway to elevate Justice Bader Ginsberg to some sort of "legal giant" status who could not ever be replaced by someone of differing political and social views. Therefore promos for the CNN documentary present Bader Ginsberg as a pioneer--"the first" to do everything she ever did. I'm sure more than a few of the talking heads invited to take part had to be corrected in calling her "the first female Justice"--as Sandra Day O'Connor holds that distinction (but because she was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and sided with the Conservatives on the court more often than not, her accomplishments and historic stature "don't count".) One contributor even calls Bader Ginsberg "a superhero!!".
If you thought the nomination hearings to replace the "boring" Justice Anthony Kennedy were a clown show with protest inerruptions and Senators claiming they would rather be "kicked out of the Senate" than allow innocuous e-mail documents not to be released the public (who couldn't care less), just imagine if a Republican President got to nominate a replacement for Justice Bader Ginsberg--especially after millenials come to think of her as the "Beyoncé of the Supreme Court".
Bader Ginsberg has been on the Supreme Court for 25-years now--so her sudden popularity may seem a bit strange. Actually, the pop culture popularity of any Supreme Court justice should be baffling--but there is a reason for it at this time. Given that she is 85-years old, Bader Ginsberg is seen as the "next" Supreme Court Justice to leave the High Court--either through retirement (which she would never do with a Republican President in office) or through death. And as the staunchest of liberals on the Court, the Left cannot bear the thought of her being replaced by someone that would be appointed by Donald Trump or any other Republican that might win in 2020.
So a concerted effort is underway to elevate Justice Bader Ginsberg to some sort of "legal giant" status who could not ever be replaced by someone of differing political and social views. Therefore promos for the CNN documentary present Bader Ginsberg as a pioneer--"the first" to do everything she ever did. I'm sure more than a few of the talking heads invited to take part had to be corrected in calling her "the first female Justice"--as Sandra Day O'Connor holds that distinction (but because she was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and sided with the Conservatives on the court more often than not, her accomplishments and historic stature "don't count".) One contributor even calls Bader Ginsberg "a superhero!!".
If you thought the nomination hearings to replace the "boring" Justice Anthony Kennedy were a clown show with protest inerruptions and Senators claiming they would rather be "kicked out of the Senate" than allow innocuous e-mail documents not to be released the public (who couldn't care less), just imagine if a Republican President got to nominate a replacement for Justice Bader Ginsberg--especially after millenials come to think of her as the "Beyoncé of the Supreme Court".
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
The 2020 Republican Nominee for President
In 2016, I wrote-in House Speaker Paul Ryan both during the August Presidential primary and in the November General Election for President. In November, I also wrote-in Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse for Vice President--and on Tuesday, in the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Sasse all but guaranteed he was getting my vote for President in 2020--whether he runs or not--with this statement about why government at all levels have become so dysfunctional:
The 2020 Republican race for President was decided in a Senate hearing room on Tuesday, folks. You can either get on board a return to a Constitutional Democracy or you can continue down the path of self-destruction.
The 2020 Republican race for President was decided in a Senate hearing room on Tuesday, folks. You can either get on board a return to a Constitutional Democracy or you can continue down the path of self-destruction.
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Dear Class of 2032
A lot of pundits like to write "graduation speeches" in the spring for the poor, unfortunate newbies heading into the "real world" for the first time. But today, I'd like to address the incoming kindergartners with a "welcome speech" to get them ready for the next 13 years:
Dear Class of 2032 (doesn't seem super-futuristic to say the year "2032"),
You are about to start the most important 13-years of your life today. Here are some tips on how to do the best you can. Don't let anyone hold you back. If you can do something faster or better than someone else, do it. Your teacher will likely tell you that everyone needs to finish at the same time or use the same process--but there is nothing wrong with being better. If your classmates don't want to work harder to catch up to you, then that is their problem--not yours. And if you are made to work as a group--they like to call it "collaboration"--be the person that is always getting the work done. It might seem unfair that everyone else is getting the same grade as you--but the time will come when they won't be able to do anything on their own--and you will.
Remember, Everyone doesn't have to be your friend. The Golden Rule always is true: "treat others the way you would want to be treated". But that doesn't mean that everyone in your class has to be invited to your birthday party, or given a Valentine's day card, or included in whatever game you play during recess. You are allowed to like who you like. And you are absolutely allowed to have a best friend with whom you can spend more time and have more fun than anyone else.
The way things are today is not your fault. You are five or six years old--your entire life until now has been about playing, eating and sleeping. Yet, some people are going to make you feel like you are the reason other people may not be as good in school, or have as many toys as you or that one of their parents might be in prison. Remember, you had absolutely nothing to do with that--despite what some adults might say. And it is okay that your parents taught you about Jesus, or that your Dad likes to shoot guns, or that you think hamburgers are tasty--just like it is okay for other kids not to know about Jesus, or to have parents that are afraid of guns and that some kids aren't allowed to have tasty burgers. That doesn't mean you are not allowed to do any of the things that your family likes to do.
It might seem like the homework and the books and the tests are going to be the hardest thing about being in school now--but it will be the adults trying to make all of you the same that you need to worry about. Good luck and please learn to write and speak in complete sentences.
Dear Class of 2032 (doesn't seem super-futuristic to say the year "2032"),
You are about to start the most important 13-years of your life today. Here are some tips on how to do the best you can. Don't let anyone hold you back. If you can do something faster or better than someone else, do it. Your teacher will likely tell you that everyone needs to finish at the same time or use the same process--but there is nothing wrong with being better. If your classmates don't want to work harder to catch up to you, then that is their problem--not yours. And if you are made to work as a group--they like to call it "collaboration"--be the person that is always getting the work done. It might seem unfair that everyone else is getting the same grade as you--but the time will come when they won't be able to do anything on their own--and you will.
Remember, Everyone doesn't have to be your friend. The Golden Rule always is true: "treat others the way you would want to be treated". But that doesn't mean that everyone in your class has to be invited to your birthday party, or given a Valentine's day card, or included in whatever game you play during recess. You are allowed to like who you like. And you are absolutely allowed to have a best friend with whom you can spend more time and have more fun than anyone else.
The way things are today is not your fault. You are five or six years old--your entire life until now has been about playing, eating and sleeping. Yet, some people are going to make you feel like you are the reason other people may not be as good in school, or have as many toys as you or that one of their parents might be in prison. Remember, you had absolutely nothing to do with that--despite what some adults might say. And it is okay that your parents taught you about Jesus, or that your Dad likes to shoot guns, or that you think hamburgers are tasty--just like it is okay for other kids not to know about Jesus, or to have parents that are afraid of guns and that some kids aren't allowed to have tasty burgers. That doesn't mean you are not allowed to do any of the things that your family likes to do.
It might seem like the homework and the books and the tests are going to be the hardest thing about being in school now--but it will be the adults trying to make all of you the same that you need to worry about. Good luck and please learn to write and speak in complete sentences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)